November 19, 2012 "Information
Clearing House"
- (Washington, DC) – Governments should pre-emptively
ban fully autonomous weapons because of the danger they pose
to civilians in armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said in a
report released today. These future weapons, sometimes
called “killer robots,” would be able to choose and fire on
targets without human intervention.

The 50-page report,
“Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots,”
outlines concerns about these fully autonomous weapons,
which would inherently lack human qualities that provide
legal and non-legal checks on the killing of civilians. In
addition, the obstacles to holding anyone accountable for
harm caused by the weapons would weaken the law’s power to
deter future violations.

“Giving machines the power to decide who lives and dies on
the battlefield would take technology too far,” said
Steve
Goose, Arms Division director at Human Rights Watch.
“Human control of robotic warfare is essential to minimizing
civilian deaths and injuries.”

“Losing Humanity” is the first major publication
about fully autonomous weapons by a nongovernmental
organization and is based on extensive research into the
law, technology, and ethics of these proposed weapons. It is
jointly published by Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Law
School International Human Rights Clinic.

Human Rights Watch and the International Human Rights Clinic
called for an international treaty that would absolutely
prohibit the development, production, and use of fully
autonomous weapons. They also called on individual nations
to pass laws and adopt policies as important measures to
prevent development, production, and use of such weapons at
the domestic level.

Fully autonomous weapons do not yet exist, and major powers,
including the United States, have not made a decision to
deploy them. But high-tech militaries are developing or have
already deployed precursors that illustrate the push toward
greater autonomy for machines on the battlefield. The United
States is a leader in this technological development.
Several other countries – including China, Germany, Israel,
South Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom – have also been
involved. Many experts predict that full autonomy for
weapons could be achieved in 20 to 30 years, and some think
even sooner.

“It is essential to stop the development of killer robots
before they show up in national arsenals,” Goose said. “As
countries become more invested in this technology, it will
become harder to persuade them to give it up.”

Fully autonomous weapons could not meet the
requirements of international humanitarian law, Human Rights
Watch and the Harvard clinic said. They would be unable to
distinguish adequately between soldiers and civilians on the
battlefield or apply the human judgment necessary to
evaluate the proportionality of an attack – whether civilian
harm outweighs military advantage.

These robots would also undermine non-legal checks on the
killing of civilians. Fully autonomous weapons could not
show human compassion for their victims, and autocrats could
abuse them by directing them against their own people. While
replacing human troops with machines could save military
lives, it could also make going to war easier, which would
shift the burden of armed conflict onto civilians.

Finally, the use of fully autonomous weapons would create an
accountability gap. Trying to hold the commander,
programmer, or manufacturer legally responsible for a
robot’s actions presents significant challenges. The lack of
accountability would undercut the ability to deter
violations of international law and to provide victims
meaningful retributive justice.

While most militaries maintain that for the immediate future
humans will retain some oversight over the actions of
weaponized robots, the effectiveness of that oversight is
questionable, Human Rights Watch and the Harvard clinic
said. Moreover, military statements have left the door open
to full autonomy in the future.

“Action is needed now, before killer robots cross the line
from science fiction to feasibility,” Goose said.

In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)